Abstract
This paper attempts to show that manufacture of Micoquian bifacial backed tools was structured. Data for this study were collected using a comprehensive analysis of artefacts from the site Pietraszyn 49a, Poland, which is dated to the beginning of Marine Isotope Stage 3. Based on the whole data set, it was possible to distinguish four stages of the manufacturing process. During manufacturing, both mineral hammer and organic hammer were used. The tools were usually shaped due to distinct hierarchization of faces. The study has also shown that the shape of bifacial tools from Pietraszyn 49a is very similar to the other Micoquian examples from central Europe. The ways of shaping of some tools are finding their counterparts also in the Early Upper Palaeolithic inventories, but the similarities are rather limited to the narrow range of preparation of bifacial form.
Highlights
IntroductionJournal of Paleolithic Archaeology publications (Bosinski 1967, 1969, 2000–2001, 2006; Burdukiewicz 2000; Chmielewski 1969; Desbrosse et al 1976; Kozłowski 1972; Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1977; Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1996; Krukowski 1939-1948; Koulakovska et al 1993; Mania and Toepfer 1973; Richter 1997; Sobczyk 1975, 1992; Valoch 1988; Veil et al 1994 and others)
Since the recognition of the Central and Eastern European Micoquian (CEEM), methods of manufacturing bifacial tools have been addressed in a variety ofThis article belongs to the Topical Collection: The bifacial shaping phenomenon over time and space Guest Editors: Marie-Hélène Moncel and Marta ArzarelloGermany 3 Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Warszawa, Poland 4 The State Archaeological Museum, Warszawa, PolandJournal of Paleolithic Archaeology publications (Bosinski 1967, 1969, 2000–2001, 2006; Burdukiewicz 2000; Chmielewski 1969; Desbrosse et al 1976; Kozłowski 1972; Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1977; Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1996; Krukowski 1939-1948; Koulakovska et al 1993; Mania and Toepfer 1973; Richter 1997; Sobczyk 1975, 1992; Valoch 1988; Veil et al 1994 and others)
The analysis of raw material adaptation revealed metric and mass differences between the artefacts grouped into classes of material modification (A to F)
Summary
Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology publications (Bosinski 1967, 1969, 2000–2001, 2006; Burdukiewicz 2000; Chmielewski 1969; Desbrosse et al 1976; Kozłowski 1972; Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1977; Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1996; Krukowski 1939-1948; Koulakovska et al 1993; Mania and Toepfer 1973; Richter 1997; Sobczyk 1975, 1992; Valoch 1988; Veil et al 1994 and others) This was only brief mentions, gradually replaced by discussions on the formal classification of bifacial tools. Gaps in our understanding include an assessment of the techniques applied in the manufacture of a bifacial tool, a more precise specification of shaping, and modification stages Some of these aspects have been discussed in the context of single sites (Frick and Floss 2017; Neruda and Kaminská 2013), but such conclusions have been based on the analysis of flake scars of intensively reduced artefacts. The gaps in our understanding become even more pronounced when the state of analysis of Micoquian technology is confronted with that of the analysis of somewhat older or younger bifacial technologies which were analysed in more detail (Apel 2001; Aubry et al 2008; Austin 1994; Bradley and Sampson 1986; Bradley et al 2010; Callahan 1996; Gowlett 2006; Moore 2015; Stout et al 2014; Wenban-Smith 1999 and others)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
